RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Saudi Arabia’s ruling monarchy moved into a critical period of realignment Saturday after the death of the heir to the throne opened the way for a new crown prince: most likely a tough-talking interior minister who has led crackdowns on Islamic militants but also has shown favor to ultraconservative traditions such as keeping the ban on women voting. A state funeral is planned for Tuesday in Riyadh for crown prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, who died in New York at the age of 80 after an unspecified illness, the official Saudi Press Agency said. Now, Saudi rulers are expected to move quickly to name the new king-in-waiting – which royal protocol suggests will be Sultan’s half brother, Prince Nayef. Moving Nayef to the top of the succession ladder would not likely pose any risks to Saudi Arabia’s pro-Western policies and, in particular, its close alliance with Washington. But Nayef cuts a much more mercurial figure than Saudi’s current leader, the ailing King Abdullah, who has nudged ahead with reforms such as promising women voting rights in 2015 despite rumblings from the country’s powerful religious establishment. Nayef, 78, has earned U.S. praise for unleashing the internal security forces against suspected Islamic extremist cells in Saudi Arabia, which was home to 15 of 19 of the Sept. 11 hijackers. Yet he brought blistering rebukes in the West for a 2002 interview that quoted him as saying that “Zionists” – a reference to Jews – benefited from the 9-11 attacks because it turned world opinion against Islam and Arabs. Nayef also has expressed displeasure at some of Abdullah’s moves for more openness, saying in 2009 that he saw no need for women to vote or participate in politics. It’s a view shared by many Saudi clerics, who follow a strict brand of Islam known as Wahhabism. Their support gives the Saudi monarchy the legitimacy to rule over a nation holding Islam’s holiest sites. “Nayef is more religious, and is closer to the Saudi groups who are very critical of the king’s decisions regarding women and other steps he’s taken to balance out the rigid religious practices in society,” said Ali Fakhro, a political analyst and commentator in Bahrain. But it remains doubtful that Nayef – if ever made king – would outright annul Abdullah’s reforms, which include the establishment of a coed university where both genders can mix. More likely, Nayef would put any further changes on hold, said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a political affairs professor at Emirates University. “It’s not good news for Saudis or for the region,” he said. “(Nayef) is the security guy. He is the mukhabarat (secret police) guy. He is the internal affairs guy.” Although it’s not certain that Nayef will be selected to succeed Sultan, the signs point clearly in that direction. After Sultan fell ill two years ago, Nayef was named second deputy prime minister, traditionally the post right behind the crown prince. For the first time, however, the mechanism of picking the next No. 2 in the royal succession is not entirely clear. Traditionally, the king names his successor. But this time it is possible that Abdullah will put the decision to the Allegiance Council, a 33-member body composed of his brothers and cousins. Abdullah created the council as part of his reforms and gave it a mandate to choose the heir. Abdullah formed the council in order to modernize the process and give a wider voice. When it was created, it was decided that the council would choose the heir for the first time when Sultan rose to the throne, and his crown prince would need to be named. But it was not specified whether it would be used if Sultan died before the king. The choice of whether to convene the council now will likely be made by the 87-year-old Abdullah, who is currently recovering from his third operation to treat back problems in less than a year. “It is with deep sorrow and grief that the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah mourns the loss of his brother and Crown Prince, His Royal Highness Prince Sultan,” the palace said in a statement announcing Sultan’s death. The announcement did not elaborate on his illness. According to a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable from January 2010, Sultan had been receiving treatment for colon cancer since 2009. Sultan was the kingdom’s defense minister in 1990 when U.S. forces deployed in Saudi Arabia to defend it against Iraqi forces that had overrun Kuwait. His son, Prince Khaled, served as the top Arab commander in the 1991 operation Desert Storm, in which U.S.-led troops drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait. As defense minister, Sultan closed multibillion-dollar deals to establish the modern Saudi armed forces, including land, air, naval and air defense forces. On more than one occasion, the deals implicated several of his sons in corruption scandals – charges they have denied. Sultan is survived by 32 children from multiple wives. They include Bandar, the former ambassador to the United States who now heads the National Security Council, and Khaled, Sultan’s assistant in the Defense Ministry. U.S. President Barack Obama called the prince “a valued friend of the United States” in a statement of condolence. “He was a strong supporter of the deep and enduring partnership between our two countries forged almost seven decades ago.” “He will be missed,” said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a visit to Tajikistan. “Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is strong and enduring and we will look forward to working with the leadership for many years to come.” Britain’s foreign secretary, William Hague, said Sultan served his country with “great dignity and dedication.” Saudi Arabia has been ruled since 1953 by the sons of its founder, King Abdul-Aziz, who had more than 40 sons by multiple wives. Sultan was part of the aging second generation of Abdul-Aziz’s sons, including Nayef, the full brother of the late King Fahd, who died in 2005. While Nayef has taken only minor roles in foreign affairs, he has been outspoken in one of Saudi Arabia’s chief regional concerns: ambitions by rival Iran to expand its influence in the Middle East. Earlier this year, he blamed the Shiite power for encouraging protests among Saudi Arabia’s minority Shiites. Nayef also was involved in the kingdom’s decision in March to send military forces into neighboring Bahrain to help crush pro-reform demonstrations led by tiny island nation’s majority Shiites against its Sunni rulers – which Gulf Arab leaders accuse of having ties to Iran. With Yemen, he has called for Saudi Arabia to take a harder line with embattled President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was treated in Saudi Arabia after surviving a blast in June and later returned to Yemen. In August, Nayef accepted undisclosed libel damages from Britain’s newspaper The Independent over an article which accused him of ordering police chiefs to shoot and kill unarmed demonstrators in Saudi Arabia. Nayef has chaired Cabinet meetings in place of Abdullah and Sultan. He also draws considerable prestige from being among the sons of Abdul-Aziz’s most prominent wife, known as the Sudeiri Seven. Abdullah’s predecessor Fahd also was among the seven. “Nayef’s closer links to the Wahhabi establishment may see a reversal of some recent reforms, especially regarding women,” said Christopher Davidson, a lecturer at Britain’s Durham University and an expert on Gulf affairs. “But more likely business as usual, I think, with no further major reforms.” ___ Murphy reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press writers Maggie Michael in Cairo and Barbara Surk in Manama, Bahrain, contributed to this report.
Continue reading …RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Saudi Arabia’s ruling monarchy moved into a critical period of realignment Saturday after the death of the heir to the throne opened the way for a new crown prince: most likely a tough-talking interior minister who has led crackdowns on Islamic militants but also has shown favor to ultraconservative traditions such as keeping the ban on women voting. A state funeral is planned for Tuesday in Riyadh for crown prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, who died in New York at the age of 80 after an unspecified illness, the official Saudi Press Agency said. Now, Saudi rulers are expected to move quickly to name the new king-in-waiting – which royal protocol suggests will be Sultan’s half brother, Prince Nayef. Moving Nayef to the top of the succession ladder would not likely pose any risks to Saudi Arabia’s pro-Western policies and, in particular, its close alliance with Washington. But Nayef cuts a much more mercurial figure than Saudi’s current leader, the ailing King Abdullah, who has nudged ahead with reforms such as promising women voting rights in 2015 despite rumblings from the country’s powerful religious establishment. Nayef, 78, has earned U.S. praise for unleashing the internal security forces against suspected Islamic extremist cells in Saudi Arabia, which was home to 15 of 19 of the Sept. 11 hijackers. Yet he brought blistering rebukes in the West for a 2002 interview that quoted him as saying that “Zionists” – a reference to Jews – benefited from the 9-11 attacks because it turned world opinion against Islam and Arabs. Nayef also has expressed displeasure at some of Abdullah’s moves for more openness, saying in 2009 that he saw no need for women to vote or participate in politics. It’s a view shared by many Saudi clerics, who follow a strict brand of Islam known as Wahhabism. Their support gives the Saudi monarchy the legitimacy to rule over a nation holding Islam’s holiest sites. “Nayef is more religious, and is closer to the Saudi groups who are very critical of the king’s decisions regarding women and other steps he’s taken to balance out the rigid religious practices in society,” said Ali Fakhro, a political analyst and commentator in Bahrain. But it remains doubtful that Nayef – if ever made king – would outright annul Abdullah’s reforms, which include the establishment of a coed university where both genders can mix. More likely, Nayef would put any further changes on hold, said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a political affairs professor at Emirates University. “It’s not good news for Saudis or for the region,” he said. “(Nayef) is the security guy. He is the mukhabarat (secret police) guy. He is the internal affairs guy.” Although it’s not certain that Nayef will be selected to succeed Sultan, the signs point clearly in that direction. After Sultan fell ill two years ago, Nayef was named second deputy prime minister, traditionally the post right behind the crown prince. For the first time, however, the mechanism of picking the next No. 2 in the royal succession is not entirely clear. Traditionally, the king names his successor. But this time it is possible that Abdullah will put the decision to the Allegiance Council, a 33-member body composed of his brothers and cousins. Abdullah created the council as part of his reforms and gave it a mandate to choose the heir. Abdullah formed the council in order to modernize the process and give a wider voice. When it was created, it was decided that the council would choose the heir for the first time when Sultan rose to the throne, and his crown prince would need to be named. But it was not specified whether it would be used if Sultan died before the king. The choice of whether to convene the council now will likely be made by the 87-year-old Abdullah, who is currently recovering from his third operation to treat back problems in less than a year. “It is with deep sorrow and grief that the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah mourns the loss of his brother and Crown Prince, His Royal Highness Prince Sultan,” the palace said in a statement announcing Sultan’s death. The announcement did not elaborate on his illness. According to a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable from January 2010, Sultan had been receiving treatment for colon cancer since 2009. Sultan was the kingdom’s defense minister in 1990 when U.S. forces deployed in Saudi Arabia to defend it against Iraqi forces that had overrun Kuwait. His son, Prince Khaled, served as the top Arab commander in the 1991 operation Desert Storm, in which U.S.-led troops drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait. As defense minister, Sultan closed multibillion-dollar deals to establish the modern Saudi armed forces, including land, air, naval and air defense forces. On more than one occasion, the deals implicated several of his sons in corruption scandals – charges they have denied. Sultan is survived by 32 children from multiple wives. They include Bandar, the former ambassador to the United States who now heads the National Security Council, and Khaled, Sultan’s assistant in the Defense Ministry. U.S. President Barack Obama called the prince “a valued friend of the United States” in a statement of condolence. “He was a strong supporter of the deep and enduring partnership between our two countries forged almost seven decades ago.” “He will be missed,” said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a visit to Tajikistan. “Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is strong and enduring and we will look forward to working with the leadership for many years to come.” Britain’s foreign secretary, William Hague, said Sultan served his country with “great dignity and dedication.” Saudi Arabia has been ruled since 1953 by the sons of its founder, King Abdul-Aziz, who had more than 40 sons by multiple wives. Sultan was part of the aging second generation of Abdul-Aziz’s sons, including Nayef, the full brother of the late King Fahd, who died in 2005. While Nayef has taken only minor roles in foreign affairs, he has been outspoken in one of Saudi Arabia’s chief regional concerns: ambitions by rival Iran to expand its influence in the Middle East. Earlier this year, he blamed the Shiite power for encouraging protests among Saudi Arabia’s minority Shiites. Nayef also was involved in the kingdom’s decision in March to send military forces into neighboring Bahrain to help crush pro-reform demonstrations led by tiny island nation’s majority Shiites against its Sunni rulers – which Gulf Arab leaders accuse of having ties to Iran. With Yemen, he has called for Saudi Arabia to take a harder line with embattled President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was treated in Saudi Arabia after surviving a blast in June and later returned to Yemen. In August, Nayef accepted undisclosed libel damages from Britain’s newspaper The Independent over an article which accused him of ordering police chiefs to shoot and kill unarmed demonstrators in Saudi Arabia. Nayef has chaired Cabinet meetings in place of Abdullah and Sultan. He also draws considerable prestige from being among the sons of Abdul-Aziz’s most prominent wife, known as the Sudeiri Seven. Abdullah’s predecessor Fahd also was among the seven. “Nayef’s closer links to the Wahhabi establishment may see a reversal of some recent reforms, especially regarding women,” said Christopher Davidson, a lecturer at Britain’s Durham University and an expert on Gulf affairs. “But more likely business as usual, I think, with no further major reforms.” ___ Murphy reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press writers Maggie Michael in Cairo and Barbara Surk in Manama, Bahrain, contributed to this report.
Continue reading …If you’re going to go to the trouble of sending a camera to the edge of space, you might as well send one capable capable of doing the trip justice, right? That hasn’t always been the case with similar DIY attempts (for obvious reasons), but the team behind the so-called Cygnus “spacecraft” decided to go all out when they sent their weather balloon / beer cooler contraption aloft this month to photograph the curvature of the Earth. In this case, going all out meant sending a Nikon D300s DSLR equipped with Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens, which manged to capture some stunning pictures like the one you see above — although some got a bit obscured by ice build-up. There’s more where that came from at the Flickr link below, and you can check out a video of the launch after the break. [Thanks, Udi] Continue reading Nikon D300s travels to the edge of space, survives to share the results Nikon D300s travels to the edge of space, survives to share the results originally appeared on Engadget on Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:49:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …During the roundtable segment on Sunday's Meet the Press , NBC's Andrea Mitchell typically acted as Barack Obama's press secretary defending the President from any and all criticism lodged by other panelists. Apparently having witnessed enough shameless advocacy from a so-called journalist, when Mitchell used the Occupy Wall Street movement to defend Obama's economic policies, former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford Jr. replied, “He's the President. Democrats can't criticize Republicans for catering to the Tea Party and not be, and not say to our Democratic Party you got to look beyond Occupy and be willing to do what's in the best interest of the country” (video follows with transcript and commentary): DAVID GREGORY, HOST: Harold Ford, it was none other than Steve Jobs in the new biography by Walter Isaacson who, who writes about him meeting with Obama, and this is how The Huffington Post reported it. Jobs telling Obama “`You're headed for a one-term presidency,' he said at their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly.” This is still the, the overhang they have to deal with. FMR. DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN HAROLD FORD JR.: Look, their posture has been really bad. Their policies have not been nearly as bad. If you think about the beginning of his administration, people thought that he would pass card check, and there was great angst, concern and anxiety in the business community, particularly the retail community. He didn't do it. He's been… FORMER GENERAL ELECTRIC CEO JACK WELCH: Tragic. FMR. REP. FORD JR.: Right. Well, he didn't do it. The congressmen tried, but he didn't do it, and it didn't get, it didn't get done. Cars, banks, financial institutions, he's been great. The EPA regulations he's backed off on. But the posture and the language and the rhetoric has been just too overheated. And to, to Mr. Welch's point, you can't, you can't incentivize the type of things that he, that they incentivized in this bill. Two, you have huge balance sheets on the part of corporate America, meaning they're making money. You got to incentivize them, as the president has asked, to use that money to stimulate job creation. There's a way to do it, if you have some certainty around regulations and taxes. ANDREA MITCHELL: How does he follow that… FMR. REP. FORD JR.: And two, you've got 1.2, maybe 1.3 trillion sitting overseas. MR. WELCH: Mm-hmm. Yeah. FMR. REP. FORD JR.: Allow that money to come back. But… MS. MITCHELL: With Occupy Wall Street, how does he take that posture? FMR. REP. FORD JR.: He's the President, Andrea. He's the President. MS. MITCHELL: He's caught between two polar opposites. FMR. REP. FORD JR.: We Democrats, we Democrats can't criticize Republicans for catering to the Tea Party and not be, and not say to our Democratic Party you got to look beyond Occupy and be willing to do what's in the best interest of the country. Readers are encouraged to review the video of the entire fourteen minute segment to see additional instances of Mitchell acting more like Obama's press secretary than a journalist. As for Ford, it's nice to see there are still some Democrats that are willing to honestly discuss what's going on in the country without regard to Party. If only folks like Mitchell and her colleagues in the press behaved that way.
Continue reading …A powerful earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 7.3 struck eastern Turkey today, collapsing at least two buildings in the center of eastern city of Van, the mayor said. “Two buildings collapsed in Van, but the telephone system is jammed due to panic and we can’t assess the entire…
Continue reading …Long accustomed to luxury, Moammar Gadhafi spent his last days shuffling between safe houses in a residential section of Sirte, eking out an increasingly frustrated existence on pasta and rice his guards swiped from empty houses, reports the New York Times . “He would say: ‘Why is there no electricity? Why…
Continue reading …Adnan Nevic, 12, hopes child seven billion will see world peace. Is it possible in a world of growing competition for resources? In a modest flat in Visoko, near Sarajevo in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 12-year-old Adnan Nevic is playing with a globe. “America, Australia, Asia,” he says, pointing out the places he would like to visit on the slightly deflated blow-up toy. His favourite subject at school is geography and he wants to be a pilot when he grows up, the better to fulfil his dreams of global travel. That Adnan has such an international outlook is hardly surprising: at only two days old, he was held aloft in a Sarajevo hospital by the then United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, to be snapped by the world’s news photographers. Of all the 80 million babies born that year, Adnan was chosen as the world’s six billionth living person . The UN calculates that the world will have its seventh billion person on 31 October; the global population will hit nine billion by 2050; and, according to a UN report due on Wednesday , by the end of the century there could be 16 billion people on the planet, although most experts consider this an unlikely scenario, at the very top end of the range of expectations. Adnan was born in 1999, chosen ostensibly at random but really as a symbol of hope after a bloody decade in the former Yugoslavia, which was also the birthplace of the five billionth baby, born in Zagreb in 1987. The four billionth person was born in 1974, and the three billionth in 1960, according to the UN. Before that, the world took much longer to add so many people: there were two billion people in 1927, and it took the whole of human history until 1804 to reach the point at which a whole billion people inhabited the planet at the same time. Adnan, as well as being a 12-year-old boy with aspirations to travel the globe, is an emblem of the rapidly growing world population that until recently has shown few signs of abating. Rising birth rates in many countries, particularly in the developing world, have combined with longer life expectancy and successes in reducing infant mortality to produce a total population that few used to predict was even possible. Adnan lives in a modest flat in the historic city. The cars parked outside are mid-range models not more than a few years old, the blocks are well-kept and the surroundings are pleasant though not affluent. Outside the block there is a solitary piece of graffiti, in blue spraypaint. It reads “Adnan”. He is a local celebrity. Most of the 78 million children born this year – and of the two to three billion expected in the next 40 years – will not be so lucky. The vast majority will be born into appalling privation, in slums in developing countries. Is the world failing these children? Last year, although enough food was produced to satisfy the world’s needs, at least one billion people went hungry, according to UN estimates. The same number lacked access to clean water and more than 2.6 billion people still have no adequate sanitation. Most of the world’s population now live in towns and cities, not the countryside, for the first time in history. But the urban centres that people are joining are the world’s burgeoning megacities, in each of which tens of millions of people live in penury without electricity, water, toilets or enough to eat. Child seven billion will be born into a different world to that which Adnan entered – one threatened by terrorism, economic crisis, climate change and new wars unthought of in 1999. But the problems that the exploding population will unleash may, according to some commentators, make today’s crises seem mild. “Of all the interconnected problems we face, perhaps the most serious is the proliferation of our own species,” says Sir Crispin Tickell , a former British ambassador to the UN, now an environmental guru. “We are like a species out of control.” As population rises, this argument runs, consumption will increase and place an impossible strain on natural resources, from water supplies and agricultural land to fish in the ocean, as well as giving rise to runaway climate change as we burn ever more fossil fuels. One example of the kind of problem the planet will face has been this year’s devastating famine in the Horn of Africa . Drought was the primary cause, but it has been exacerbated by pressure on the land; the population of the region has doubled since the early 1970s. Mary Robinson, the former Irish president, told a recent meeting of the Aspen Institute : “Somalia shows the extent to which failure to learn from the famine in 1992, and our failure to prioritise the health of women and children, has become a global problem, one none of us can ignore.” This view is derided in some quarters, especially the US right, as “neo-Malthusian” – a pessimistic assumption of limit to the world’s bounty that has always been proved wrong in the past. Productivity – squeezing more food from less land, more energy from fewer resources – has kept pace with or exceeded population growth in the past, so why not in the future? Although fertility rates have declined slightly from their 1960s peak, there is now a demographic “bulge”, a boom in the number of young people, that will ensure growth continues at a clip for the next few decades. By around mid-century, if the predictions are right, population will for the first time in centuries begin a slow decline. These are just guesses. Many experts believe the UN’s nine billion to be a gross underestimate, and predict 11 billion or 12 billion as more likely. Previous predictions have been too low: the UN’s forecast in the early 1990s was that population would peak in 2050 at 7.8 billion, a level now virtually certain to be exceeded in the next 15 years. This year, the seven billionth person will not be named; instead, the UN is merely celebrating the arrival on 31 October. According to the UN, this is because all babies born around the time will be equally marked. But Adnan’s family suspect the real reason may be embarrassment. His parents have been bewildered by the way the UN has behaved since singling out their only child for attention. Since that day, they have received almost no communication from the organisation and certainly no support. “We saw Kofi Annan as almost like a godfather to him,” says Adnan’s father, Jasminko. “He held me up when I was two days old, but since then we have heard nothing from them,” says Adnan. The disappointment is palpable. Adan’s father is unwell, and his pension and a small stipend paid by Sarajevo as long as Adnan remains in education are the family’s only income. For the boy singled out as the five billionth person, the story is remarkably similar. Matej Gaspar is also aggrieved at the way the UN picked him out at birth and then ignored him for the rest of his life. Adnan and Gaspar are friends on Facebook and have discussed what they regard as their unfair treatment. It would not be surprising if the UN is touchy about its approach to population questions. For two decades, population concerns have been pushed to one side as governments have become increasingly sensitive about the issue. There are several reasons – fear on the part of rich countries of being seen to attempt to control the fertility of developing nations; an emphasis on other problems, such as diseases, that seemed less intractable; and religion, which took population firmly off the international aid agenda for the whole of George W Bush’s US presidency. Even usually outspoken green groups have censored themselves on the subject, avoiding the question of whether the number of people on the planet has an impact on our ecology in favour of pointing out that the west consumes a far larger share of available resources than the south. Some of this reticence is well-founded. Previous discussions under the heading of “overpopulation” implied that some of the world’s inhabitants were surplus to requirements, an unpleasant suggestion that carried overtones of eugenics. Population experts lament that these fears prevented a frank discussion for years of whether we should be trying to curb the growth of population in our own interests. Women’s rights are central to this framing of the argument. Hundreds of millions of women around the world, but mainly in developing countries, have families bigger than they wish, because they are being denied the ability to control their own reproductive health, according to Population Action International . Although the planet may be able to support billions more people than are forecast to join us, the question of how all of those new people can live decently, rather than in unnecessary misery, will not be answered by nature or technology but by politics. Whether our political systems can cope with the strain – of competition for resources, of the distribution of Earth’s natural wealth, of the potential for runaway climate change, and of the economic and social crises that will follow – without collapsing into destitution or war is a matter for conjecture. Asked what he hopes for the seven billionth child, Adnan is unhesitating: “I wish that the birth of the seven billionth child brings peace to the planet.” From someone else, this might sound like a pious cliche. But from Adnan’s fourth-floor bedroom window, you can look out to see another block of flats close by. More than 15 years after the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina officially ended, the walls still bear the scars of hundreds of bullets. Population Bosnia and Herzegovina United Nations Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Adnan Nevic, 12, hopes child seven billion will see world peace. Is it possible in a world of growing competition for resources? In a modest flat in Visoko, near Sarajevo in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 12-year-old Adnan Nevic is playing with a globe. “America, Australia, Asia,” he says, pointing out the places he would like to visit on the slightly deflated blow-up toy. His favourite subject at school is geography and he wants to be a pilot when he grows up, the better to fulfil his dreams of global travel. That Adnan has such an international outlook is hardly surprising: at only two days old, he was held aloft in a Sarajevo hospital by the then United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, to be snapped by the world’s news photographers. Of all the 80 million babies born that year, Adnan was chosen as the world’s six billionth living person . The UN calculates that the world will have its seventh billion person on 31 October; the global population will hit nine billion by 2050; and, according to a UN report due on Wednesday , by the end of the century there could be 16 billion people on the planet, although most experts consider this an unlikely scenario, at the very top end of the range of expectations. Adnan was born in 1999, chosen ostensibly at random but really as a symbol of hope after a bloody decade in the former Yugoslavia, which was also the birthplace of the five billionth baby, born in Zagreb in 1987. The four billionth person was born in 1974, and the three billionth in 1960, according to the UN. Before that, the world took much longer to add so many people: there were two billion people in 1927, and it took the whole of human history until 1804 to reach the point at which a whole billion people inhabited the planet at the same time. Adnan, as well as being a 12-year-old boy with aspirations to travel the globe, is an emblem of the rapidly growing world population that until recently has shown few signs of abating. Rising birth rates in many countries, particularly in the developing world, have combined with longer life expectancy and successes in reducing infant mortality to produce a total population that few used to predict was even possible. Adnan lives in a modest flat in the historic city. The cars parked outside are mid-range models not more than a few years old, the blocks are well-kept and the surroundings are pleasant though not affluent. Outside the block there is a solitary piece of graffiti, in blue spraypaint. It reads “Adnan”. He is a local celebrity. Most of the 78 million children born this year – and of the two to three billion expected in the next 40 years – will not be so lucky. The vast majority will be born into appalling privation, in slums in developing countries. Is the world failing these children? Last year, although enough food was produced to satisfy the world’s needs, at least one billion people went hungry, according to UN estimates. The same number lacked access to clean water and more than 2.6 billion people still have no adequate sanitation. Most of the world’s population now live in towns and cities, not the countryside, for the first time in history. But the urban centres that people are joining are the world’s burgeoning megacities, in each of which tens of millions of people live in penury without electricity, water, toilets or enough to eat. Child seven billion will be born into a different world to that which Adnan entered – one threatened by terrorism, economic crisis, climate change and new wars unthought of in 1999. But the problems that the exploding population will unleash may, according to some commentators, make today’s crises seem mild. “Of all the interconnected problems we face, perhaps the most serious is the proliferation of our own species,” says Sir Crispin Tickell , a former British ambassador to the UN, now an environmental guru. “We are like a species out of control.” As population rises, this argument runs, consumption will increase and place an impossible strain on natural resources, from water supplies and agricultural land to fish in the ocean, as well as giving rise to runaway climate change as we burn ever more fossil fuels. One example of the kind of problem the planet will face has been this year’s devastating famine in the Horn of Africa . Drought was the primary cause, but it has been exacerbated by pressure on the land; the population of the region has doubled since the early 1970s. Mary Robinson, the former Irish president, told a recent meeting of the Aspen Institute : “Somalia shows the extent to which failure to learn from the famine in 1992, and our failure to prioritise the health of women and children, has become a global problem, one none of us can ignore.” This view is derided in some quarters, especially the US right, as “neo-Malthusian” – a pessimistic assumption of limit to the world’s bounty that has always been proved wrong in the past. Productivity – squeezing more food from less land, more energy from fewer resources – has kept pace with or exceeded population growth in the past, so why not in the future? Although fertility rates have declined slightly from their 1960s peak, there is now a demographic “bulge”, a boom in the number of young people, that will ensure growth continues at a clip for the next few decades. By around mid-century, if the predictions are right, population will for the first time in centuries begin a slow decline. These are just guesses. Many experts believe the UN’s nine billion to be a gross underestimate, and predict 11 billion or 12 billion as more likely. Previous predictions have been too low: the UN’s forecast in the early 1990s was that population would peak in 2050 at 7.8 billion, a level now virtually certain to be exceeded in the next 15 years. This year, the seven billionth person will not be named; instead, the UN is merely celebrating the arrival on 31 October. According to the UN, this is because all babies born around the time will be equally marked. But Adnan’s family suspect the real reason may be embarrassment. His parents have been bewildered by the way the UN has behaved since singling out their only child for attention. Since that day, they have received almost no communication from the organisation and certainly no support. “We saw Kofi Annan as almost like a godfather to him,” says Adnan’s father, Jasminko. “He held me up when I was two days old, but since then we have heard nothing from them,” says Adnan. The disappointment is palpable. Adan’s father is unwell, and his pension and a small stipend paid by Sarajevo as long as Adnan remains in education are the family’s only income. For the boy singled out as the five billionth person, the story is remarkably similar. Matej Gaspar is also aggrieved at the way the UN picked him out at birth and then ignored him for the rest of his life. Adnan and Gaspar are friends on Facebook and have discussed what they regard as their unfair treatment. It would not be surprising if the UN is touchy about its approach to population questions. For two decades, population concerns have been pushed to one side as governments have become increasingly sensitive about the issue. There are several reasons – fear on the part of rich countries of being seen to attempt to control the fertility of developing nations; an emphasis on other problems, such as diseases, that seemed less intractable; and religion, which took population firmly off the international aid agenda for the whole of George W Bush’s US presidency. Even usually outspoken green groups have censored themselves on the subject, avoiding the question of whether the number of people on the planet has an impact on our ecology in favour of pointing out that the west consumes a far larger share of available resources than the south. Some of this reticence is well-founded. Previous discussions under the heading of “overpopulation” implied that some of the world’s inhabitants were surplus to requirements, an unpleasant suggestion that carried overtones of eugenics. Population experts lament that these fears prevented a frank discussion for years of whether we should be trying to curb the growth of population in our own interests. Women’s rights are central to this framing of the argument. Hundreds of millions of women around the world, but mainly in developing countries, have families bigger than they wish, because they are being denied the ability to control their own reproductive health, according to Population Action International . Although the planet may be able to support billions more people than are forecast to join us, the question of how all of those new people can live decently, rather than in unnecessary misery, will not be answered by nature or technology but by politics. Whether our political systems can cope with the strain – of competition for resources, of the distribution of Earth’s natural wealth, of the potential for runaway climate change, and of the economic and social crises that will follow – without collapsing into destitution or war is a matter for conjecture. Asked what he hopes for the seven billionth child, Adnan is unhesitating: “I wish that the birth of the seven billionth child brings peace to the planet.” From someone else, this might sound like a pious cliche. But from Adnan’s fourth-floor bedroom window, you can look out to see another block of flats close by. More than 15 years after the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina officially ended, the walls still bear the scars of hundreds of bullets. Population Bosnia and Herzegovina United Nations Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Leader reiterates referendum will ask two questions, one on full independence and the second on fiscal autonomy The Scottish nationalist leader, Alex Salmond, threw down the gauntlet to Labour on Sunday, challenging the party to devise an enhanced devolution plan to put to Scottish voters alongside the independence option in the referendum. He declared he was confident, though, that Scots would back independence in the referendum due before the next Holyrood elections, in 2016. “In my heart, in my head, I think Scotland will become an independent country within the European community, with a friendly, co-operative relationship with our partners in these islands,” Salmond told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1. Salmond confirmed on Saturday, in his keynote speech to the SNP conference in Inverness, that the referendum, planned for the second half of the five-year Scottish parliament, will consist of two questions. On Sunday he gave more details. The first question would be “a straight yes-no question [on] independence,” the SNP leader said. Alongside this would be “a second question, in the same way as we did in 1997, in which we’d offer a fiscal autonomy option”. He added: “I’m not for limiting the choices of the Scottish people, I leave that to Westminster.” Salmond singled out Labour’s former first minister for Scotland, Henry McLeish, as a person sympathetic to the “devo max” alternative – to whose proposals the SNP would listen. The challenge from Salmond poses a strategic question for the Labour party in Scotland, which has still not recovered from the drubbing it received in May’s Scottish elections. Labour is devolving more autonomy to the Scottish party, which is choosing a new leader. Some senior Scottish Labour politicians have recently shown interest in exploring some sort of devo max proposal. But there is little agreement on details and any such plan would go far beyond Labour’s 1997 devolution settlement. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in Scotland also face dilemmas about devo max options, since the coalition at Westminster is introducing a more limited set of devolution changes in the Scotland bill. Salmond said on Saturday that the SNP would “campaign, full-square, for independence in the coming referendum”. Angus Robertson MP, who is director of the independence referendum campaign, revealed that the party had ringfenced a £918,000 legacy left by Edwin Morgan, Scotland’s former national poet, or Makar, for the independence campaign. But the decision to allow a second option, short of the party’s holy grail, has disconcerted some SNP activists in Inverness, who believe that devo max could prove a popular alternative for undecided voters and blunt the drive to full independence. Margo MacDonald, the former SNP MSP, who is now an independent, accused Salmond of “hedging his bets”, in the Scotland on Sunday newspaper , saying that there was “no need for a second question”. Opinion polls in Scotland show substantial majorities opposed to independence, though there has been some movement since the SNP landslide. Privately, some activists fear the economic downturn will make voters fearful of taking a leap into the dark with Scotland’s future. However, there were few signs of doubt at the conference over the past four days. The SNP was brimming with confidence. One strategist said: “We will win because we’ve got religion and our opponents have not.” Salmond hopes his party has the wherewithal to win the independence referendum. But he has shown this weekend that he is prepared for an alternative that would keep the SNP in the game if Scots vote no. Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, told the Andrew Marr Show: “The SNP have a mandate to get on with that referendum and they should stop shilly-shallying and get on with it.” The Nationalists had to answer some “big questions” about independence regarding issues including “currency, membership of the EU, and social security, pensions and so much else aside”. Murphy said: “It’s not enough to wave a flag and expect the people of Scotland to support breaking up the UK. It’s my country, it’s my flag, I’m a passionate Scot, I want what’s best for Scotland, and most people in Scotland believe what’s best for Scotland is remaining part of the UK and a big player in one of the most successful unions of nations ever seen on this Earth.” On currency, Salmond said an independent Scotland would keep sterling “until it was in Scotland’s economic advantage to join the euro – and that would be a decision of the Scottish people”. Scotland would also have its own army, navy and air force, he said, adding that “those armed forces would cooperate with our western allies in a range of engagements”. Scottish independence Scottish politics Scottish National party (SNP) Alex Salmond Scotland Labour Liberal Democrats Conservatives Martin Kettle guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Leader reiterates referendum will ask two questions, one on full independence and the second on fiscal autonomy The Scottish nationalist leader, Alex Salmond, threw down the gauntlet to Labour on Sunday, challenging the party to devise an enhanced devolution plan to put to Scottish voters alongside the independence option in the referendum. He declared he was confident, though, that Scots would back independence in the referendum due before the next Holyrood elections, in 2016. “In my heart, in my head, I think Scotland will become an independent country within the European community, with a friendly, co-operative relationship with our partners in these islands,” Salmond told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1. Salmond confirmed on Saturday, in his keynote speech to the SNP conference in Inverness, that the referendum, planned for the second half of the five-year Scottish parliament, will consist of two questions. On Sunday he gave more details. The first question would be “a straight yes-no question [on] independence,” the SNP leader said. Alongside this would be “a second question, in the same way as we did in 1997, in which we’d offer a fiscal autonomy option”. He added: “I’m not for limiting the choices of the Scottish people, I leave that to Westminster.” Salmond singled out Labour’s former first minister for Scotland, Henry McLeish, as a person sympathetic to the “devo max” alternative – to whose proposals the SNP would listen. The challenge from Salmond poses a strategic question for the Labour party in Scotland, which has still not recovered from the drubbing it received in May’s Scottish elections. Labour is devolving more autonomy to the Scottish party, which is choosing a new leader. Some senior Scottish Labour politicians have recently shown interest in exploring some sort of devo max proposal. But there is little agreement on details and any such plan would go far beyond Labour’s 1997 devolution settlement. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in Scotland also face dilemmas about devo max options, since the coalition at Westminster is introducing a more limited set of devolution changes in the Scotland bill. Salmond said on Saturday that the SNP would “campaign, full-square, for independence in the coming referendum”. Angus Robertson MP, who is director of the independence referendum campaign, revealed that the party had ringfenced a £918,000 legacy left by Edwin Morgan, Scotland’s former national poet, or Makar, for the independence campaign. But the decision to allow a second option, short of the party’s holy grail, has disconcerted some SNP activists in Inverness, who believe that devo max could prove a popular alternative for undecided voters and blunt the drive to full independence. Margo MacDonald, the former SNP MSP, who is now an independent, accused Salmond of “hedging his bets”, in the Scotland on Sunday newspaper , saying that there was “no need for a second question”. Opinion polls in Scotland show substantial majorities opposed to independence, though there has been some movement since the SNP landslide. Privately, some activists fear the economic downturn will make voters fearful of taking a leap into the dark with Scotland’s future. However, there were few signs of doubt at the conference over the past four days. The SNP was brimming with confidence. One strategist said: “We will win because we’ve got religion and our opponents have not.” Salmond hopes his party has the wherewithal to win the independence referendum. But he has shown this weekend that he is prepared for an alternative that would keep the SNP in the game if Scots vote no. Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, told the Andrew Marr Show: “The SNP have a mandate to get on with that referendum and they should stop shilly-shallying and get on with it.” The Nationalists had to answer some “big questions” about independence regarding issues including “currency, membership of the EU, and social security, pensions and so much else aside”. Murphy said: “It’s not enough to wave a flag and expect the people of Scotland to support breaking up the UK. It’s my country, it’s my flag, I’m a passionate Scot, I want what’s best for Scotland, and most people in Scotland believe what’s best for Scotland is remaining part of the UK and a big player in one of the most successful unions of nations ever seen on this Earth.” On currency, Salmond said an independent Scotland would keep sterling “until it was in Scotland’s economic advantage to join the euro – and that would be a decision of the Scottish people”. Scotland would also have its own army, navy and air force, he said, adding that “those armed forces would cooperate with our western allies in a range of engagements”. Scottish independence Scottish politics Scottish National party (SNP) Alex Salmond Scotland Labour Liberal Democrats Conservatives Martin Kettle guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …